"I don't want to start a PS3 vs. 360 debate, but its fact"

Pure and utter bullshit. Opinion, yes. Fact? No.



Developers are lazy. If they're running cross-platform code, they'll write for one and then port for the other - which has massive inherent weaknesses. Then throw in the pot the fact that the 360 has been around for longer (ie: more experience in coding for it), and has an easier architecture to code for (API's are DX9 based), then it's no wonder they code for the 360 and then try and shove the code into a PS3 with dismal results. This is why shit like Madden looks worse on the PS3 - EA are lazy cunts.

GTA IV? It suffers from the same problem. However, it's not all the 360's way. That very article you're using states throughout "Technically speaking, Xbox 360 really should be winning this contest hands-down, but bizarrely, it doesn't". and "As it is then, it comes down to personal preference" - there it is, personal preference. Oh, and "which indicates that in-house the 360 game was the lead platform" - my point just got backed up.

Games developed solely for the PS3 however, look great and hold their framerates at high resolution. Why? Because they have to code properly.

Well for starters, it's all about the money. Because the API is harder to code, it takes more effort. More effort = more money. It's also a dangerous spiral, because the opinion that the PS3 is weaker in market and that it's harder to code for, no-one will take the risk to prove this assumption incorrect. EA I can understand, if the retards that ran that excuse for a games company could take their hands off their genitals for a few seconds would realise how much potential profit there is. Rockstar surprised me, but this can also be put on EA, they need to make as much cut and run money to scare off the EA goons with a big solid gold money stick.

I know barely anything about the PS3's architecture, but it definately comes down to the more refined design of the PS3 hardware and software. It's like Opera vs. Internet Explorer. The Pro's use Opera despite the undeniable disadvantages that it brings, despite the fact that it technically surpasses IE. IE is a the de-facto standard (For the purposes of my argument, let's assume FF doesn't exist) because its "seen" by the majority to be the standard (See where I'm going with this) so web applications are developed with IE in first consideration, no matter how silly it might seem.

Its about the easy quick buck, DirectX might not be nearly as powerful as what ever up-the-arse engine the PS3 uses, but because it's easier and has been accepted as the standard (Wii60 etc.) it will always be the top dog.

I think the major problem with this is the developer kits were not released to the major dev teams for long enough BEFORE the release of the PS3, they were still riding around with stabilisers when the console launched - Which is not what you want if you want your console to be successful.

The Cell Broadband Engine Architecture (link) is absolutely insane, I spent days reading through all the technical doccumentation for it, and frankly? Between learning to code for that in six months, or chucking a game out for a console that has a pretty good market share, and is a damnsight easier to code for? I'd go for the easier route - It costs less.

With GTA IV, Microsoft paid quite a bit of money to get that onto their console. Not enough for an exclusive, but I doubt Rockstar would have done that anyway, given that every GTA has been a PS<number> game, even before they were Rockstar. The PS3 version was always going to suffer problems, because of this MS deal, and the Ps3 version being essentially a port.

The resolution thing is really six of one, half a dozen of the other. Everyones favourite Halo 3 doesn't run at 720, it's upscaled from 640. Doesn't stop it being one of the most popular things since God. Admittedly - It is pretty weak that they couldn't get it (GTA IV) working at 720, but honestly? It doesn't make enough of a difference to the end user. It still looks pretty :B

Why take advantage of a spectacular framerate, when a slower framerate is a very tiny gameplay change, that makes a nice change to the development costs?

Or its because other systems don't like it, so they don't change it for the ports.

I don't know... But i think it has to do with Development...

well, one problem is you can code for that, but the games like GTA IV and others are being pushed to get out. The companies are making these big popular chains to sell. To code for the full potential of the PS3 takes time and effort, so if you want a game that fully utilizes the PS3, look for smaller companies and games that aren't from an extremely popular series where the company is just trying to get it out ASAP and sell. Im sure Final Fantasy XIII
will probably be an exception.

Also, you want performance? The PS3 doesn't have the 16% fail rate of the 360's. I work for a local gaming store in the midwest, USA, and we have an entire 2 sections of warehouse full of defective 360's and 2, count them 2 defective PS3 systems.

I also have yet to see a laser burn in a PS3 disc. Why is this you ask? The power of the blue-ray laser allows it to be placed at a further distance from the disc, minimizing the possibility of it rubbing the disc. Thirdly, and this is what is the MOST amazing, is Blu-ray's ability to read through scratches. Thats right, it can read THROUGH scratches. So, once Microsoft gets blu-ray, all they gotta do is fix their failure rate problem.

My thing is, I sort of am a Playstation fanboy yes, but I don't for the argument crap. I like plenty of 360 games, and I fully admit that 360 has a better set of games currently, but that might change, and its simply fact that the PS3 system is better than the Xbox. But regardless, I just want to play fun games. Neither system is bad.

Developers are just lazy. They love the 360 because its a glorified PC, and developers like Epic and Valve are used to such coding constructs, and it makes it easy for them.

The PS3 on the other hand uses a completely different architecture in almost everyway. It uses OpenGL rather than DirectX, thats probably the main reason ports are superior on the 360.

Then theres the CBE and RSX integration, which is very alien to anyone from a PC based coding background.

Then theres the CBE itself. Its not like a standard in-out processor. Tasks have to be assigned, layered and synchronized. This is so the processor acts as one, instead of 6. This is something developers are going to have to get used too, because you can't buy a computer these days without multicore this and that.
They're still coding for single cores, so a single task goes through one core. Its good for multitasking, but not speed. But if you split that task up between 4 cores, it would get done 4 times as fast. Unfortunately, it takes a certain type of person to get their head round such things when it comes to a practical coding implementation.

Luckily Crytek, who love multicore action, have taken a great interest in the PS3s potential capabilities. I would love to see what CRYEngine2 would do on the system.

Wow, I rambled.

The PS3 can withstand small arms fire and it doesn't break the disc inside of it whenever you think about bumping into it.

The other stuff I can leave you guys to, since I don't have an HD tv to enjoy all of those bonuses. Have fun.